• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Powered by technology or powering technology?---Belief-based decision-making in nuclear power and synthetic fuel.
【24h】

Powered by technology or powering technology?---Belief-based decision-making in nuclear power and synthetic fuel.

机译：以技术为动力还是以技术为动力？---基于信念的核电和合成燃料决策。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The overarching question in this study is how and why technical-fixes in energy policy failed. In the post-WWII era, civilian nuclear power and synthetic fuel had both been top priorities on the U.S. national policy agenda during certain periods of time. Nuclear power was promoted and pursued persistently with great urgency for over two decades. In contrast, synthetic fuel policy suffered from boom-and-bust cycles. The juxtaposition of policy histories of nuclear power and synthetic fuel highlights many peculiarities in policymaking. The U.S. government forcefully and consistently endorsed the development of civilian nuclear power for two decades. It adopted policies to establish the competitiveness of civilian nuclear power far beyond what would have occurred under free-market conditions. Even though synthetic fuel was characterized by a similar level of economic potential and technical feasibility, the policy approach toward synthetic fuel was almost the opposite of nuclear power. Political support usually stopped when the development of synthetic fuel technology encountered economic difficulties. The contrast between the unfaltering faith in nuclear power and the indeterminate attitude toward synthetic fuel raises many important questions.; I argue that these diverging paths of development can be explained by exploring the dominant government ideology of the time or "ideology of the state" as the sociology literature describes it. The price-determining approach was a result of government preoccupied with fighting the Cold War. The U.S. intentionally idealized and deified nuclear power to serve its Cold War psychological strategy. These psychological maneuverings attached important symbolic meaning to nuclear power. The society-wide enthusiasm and resulting bandwagon market are better understood by taking the role of symbolism in the political arena into account. On the other hand, a "welfare state" ideology that stood behind synthetic fuel was confused, indeterminate, and relatively impotent, which explains the hesitancy in the government's synfuel endeavors.; In retrospect, it is not difficult to see that many of the pivotal decisions were "belief-based". Due to the long-term nature of energy planning and the inherent unpredictability of the distant future, important energy investment decisions are inevitably based on decision-makers' beliefs. Unfortunately, many generally agreed views about the future turned out to be wrong. Shared beliefs are socially constructed and reflect particular zeitgeists. Another important finding is a recurrent herding phenomenon in the forecasters' community. This phenomenon largely explains the repeated forecasting fallacies. As history reveals itself, shared beliefs about the long-term future have been repeatedly proven wrong. Nevertheless, mistakes caused by misguided beliefs often survive. As culture evolves over the long-term, an old belief system, i.e. a worldview/zeitgeist, may be challenged by a new one. Two competing worldviews underlay the pro- and antinuclear controversies: one embraces modernism while the other is skeptical of it.; Long-lived, large-scale capital-intensive energy facilities, such as nuclear power plants, are inevitably encumbered with unique "outlived-zeitgeist" jeopardy. Understanding this peculiar but pervasive characteristic teaches important lessons for today's decision-making about hydrogen and other energy technologies, and the stakes, if anything, are even higher than before.
机译：这项研究的首要问题是如何以及为什么能源政策中的技术修复失败。在第二次世界大战后时期，民用核能和合成燃料在特定时期内都是美国国家政策议程的重中之重。二十多年来，紧迫地促进和追求了核电。相比之下，合成燃料政策则经历了兴衰周期。核电和合成燃料的政策历史并列突出了决策中的许多特殊性。美国政府在过去的二十年中一直坚决支持民用核能的发展。它采取了建立民用核电竞争力的政策，远远超出了在自由市场条件下的竞争力。尽管合成燃料的经济潜力和技术可行性水平相近，但合成燃料的政策方针几乎与核电相反。当合成燃料技术的发展遇到经济困难时，通常会停止政治支持。对核电坚定不移的信念与对合成燃料的不确定态度之间的对比提出了许多重要问题。我认为，这些不同的发展路径可以通过探索当时的主流政府意识形态或社会学文献所描述的“国家意识形态”来解释。决定价格的方法是政府全力应对冷战的结果。美国故意将理想化和专用化的核电服务于其冷战心理战略。这些心理动作对核电具有重要的象征意义。通过考虑象征主义在政治领域的作用，可以更好地理解全社会的热情和由此产生的潮流市场。另一方面，站在合成燃料背后的“福利国家”意识形态被混淆，不确定和相对无能为力，这解释了政府在合成燃料方面的犹豫。回顾过去，不难看出许多关键决定都是基于“信仰”的。由于能源规划的长期性以及遥远的未来固有的不可预测性，重要的能源投资决策不可避免地基于决策者的信念。不幸的是，许多关于未来的普遍同意的观点被证明是错误的。共有的信念是社会建构的，反映了特定的时代精神。另一个重要发现是预报员社区中经常出现的放牧现象。这种现象在很大程度上解释了重复的预测谬误。随着历史的发展，关于长期未来的共同信念被反复证明是错误的。但是，由误导的信念引起的错误通常可以幸免。随着文化的长期发展，旧的信仰体系，即世界观/时代精神，可能会受到新的挑战。赞成和反对核的争论有两种相互竞争的世界观：一种拥护现代主义，而另一种则对此持怀疑态度。长久的，大规模的资本密集型能源设施，例如核电厂，不可避免地受到独特的“过时的时代精神”危害。理解这一独特而普遍的特征，可以为当今有关氢和其他能源技术的决策提供重要的经验教训，而且所涉风险甚至比以前更高。

著录项

  • 作者

    Yang, Chi-Jen.;

  • 作者单位

    Princeton University.;

  • 授予单位 Princeton University.;
  • 学科 History of Science.; Political Science Public Administration.; Energy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2008
  • 页码 348 p.
  • 总页数 348
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 自然科学史;政治理论;能源与动力工程;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号